Am I a heretic? ...and other existential questions

OK... One last post before I head to Mom & Dad's for Christmas.

Back in September, someone posted a comment in my blog asking about my thoughts on cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is a "next generation" bio-fuel made from non-food plant matter, like wood chips. The idea is that it doesn't compete with the food supply. I used it as a springboard to talk a little bit about my views on the environment - which I think you might find controversial. Surprise, surprise.

After considerable thought, and knowing that I will be opening a can of worms, I have decided to re-post that comment here on the main blog, rather than leave it buried in the comments. Here's the bottom line: I think that any approach that advocates growing our fuel invites a slippery slope of consequences that could logically lead to clearcutting the planet, releasing greenhouse gases, loss of biodiversity, and of course the obvious concerns about food supply.

But what the hell do I know?

Beware the devil of unintended consequences.

Read the comment, just below, for that and other heretical little gems to keep you thinking over the holidays.

And don't forget to watch my YouTube videos, join my Facebook group, and read my Globe and Mail piece. You can also view all of my correspondence with the Canadian government up until the start of my blog in August. Just follow the links on the right hand side of the screen.

Now here's the comment:


Thanks for your question comment about cellulosic ethanol, Rob.

I realize that the issue of cellulosic bio-fuels is a gap in my argument. In fact, I consciously chose to specify that my concern was with grain-based ethanol, while leaving cellulosic an open issue for the environmental experts to sort out. I don't feel I have the technical knowledge of that aspect of the issue to take a solid stand. And frankly, I don't think it should become a red herring in the urgent issue, which is food for fuel.

That said, if there is a devil in the cellulosic details I think it will be in the unintended consequences. Will an entire industry spring up lobbying for a variety of "forest management" techniques that produce a steady, efficient stream of forest waste?

Beyond that, I'll take this opportunity to talk a bit about my own environmental credentials and views. I have a history of being concerned about unsexy issues like ethanol and the environment. I live in a compact apartment in central Toronto, I try to walk or cycle everywhere, and the last time I owned a car was 1990. I realize most people would not see these as realistic options, but I find that the important thing is to make conscious choices. Your life will then evolve around them. I think I have a fantastic quality of life, and I will compare carbon footprints with anyone.

My sense is that the best way for our society to protect the environment is to bring a consistent level of prosperity to the planet. First, it will allow the demographic shift to occur in places like sub-Saharan Africa, so that the earth's population stabilizes. Secondly, it will afford tropical countries the economic means to put measures in place that truly protect rainforests (for example). Thirdly, it will allow us to look for truly viable technological alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Next, I am in favour of reflecting the environment costs of resource usage in their price. It is a universal truth that people value what they pay for.

Finally, I think we should try to accept with calmness and serenity that civilizations rise and fall, and that ours might too one day.

Let it not be because we rushed to jump of a cliff, like lemmings.

Farmers, and the yin and yang of advocating

Two posts in one day... I hope I'm not wearing everyone out. One piece of the puzzle that has troubled me from the beginning and that I have not spoken about at all in my blog is the effect that stopping support for grain based ethanol will have on farmers. I would like to share with you a string of emails that speaks to that issue, and equally important, to the way I like to relate to people: with reciprocal respect and integrity. To me, that means acting with respect and integrity myself, expecting others to do the same, not being afraid to call them on it when they don't, understanding all the while that we are all human and even the best of us misses the mark sometimes. It's a tall order. I know that I have missed the mark with some of you during my activities over the last year. I hope you can accept my apologies.

There is a yin and a yang to advocating. I have had to use certain mechanics of the English language to get myself heard, and frankly, to make what has been at times a lonely road of struggling and dogged determination a bit of fun. That's the yin. I think it's equally important to treat people with respect and to know when to be serious. That's the yang.

Thank you in advance to Mr. Gord Surgeoner, the other party to this series of notes who, despite our obvious differences, strikes me as a very honest person that my activites must be putting in a difficult position right now. Mr. Surgeoner, in the interest of time I am reprinting our correspondence without consulting you. I thought it important to get this note out in time for the Christmas lull, when busy people will have time to reflect. I hope you understand.

OK... here is the series of notes. I think they speak for themselves.
____________________________________________

To: ignatieff.m@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, gord@oaft.org

Hello [Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper],

I would like to share with you the following correspondence between myself and Gord Surgeoner, President of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, as some important points are made with respect to the impact of changes in ethanol policy to the agricultural sector.

Mr. Surgeoner, thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I understand that what I am suggesting is an enormous change. However, the enormity of the chaos we can expect if we don't stop encouraging diversion of food for fuel is much greater.

I urge everyone that reads this note to carefully reflect on what I am saying as you spend time with your families this holiday season. In making the difficult decision to move beyond self-interest, you have the opportunity to influence history and to be secure in the knowledge that you did the right thing when the right thing was difficult to do indeed.

Regards,
George Tesseris

___________________________________________

Dear Mr. Surgeoner,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about my piece in the Globe. You clearly have background that I do not. That said, I think it must be hard for anyone not to see the risks in the immediate supply/demand situation with respect to grains.

One of the most difficult parts of my advocacing has been the issue of farmers. I certainly understand that people have built their lives and businesses around various government programs and subsidies, and that any transition away from these things would have to be fair and orderly.

That is why I think it is so critical to get going now, and not to wait until after a crisis strikes.

As we saw last spring, the market will prove very sensitive and very quick to respond to any shortfall in supply - or even any threat thereof.

To your point about third world development, I wholeheartedly agree that the developed world's focus should be to bring about a level of prosperity in developing courntries that eliminates the need for aid and handouts. It certainly makes sense to me that Canadian agricultural expertise can have a significant role to play in that regard.

Mr. Surgeoner, no one - least of all me - wants farmers to starve. But no farmer could want millions upon millions of people to starve either. There must be better agricultural policy than ethanol, and we have whole ministries that should be looking for it.

I respectfully suggest that the most tenable position your organization could take would be to accept the problems with grain-based ethanol and to advocate for an orderly transition to agricultural policy that makes more sense and is fair to everyone. Despite our differences and the hardhitting nature of my piece, you have been fair with me in your note. I thank you for that, and I hope that I can count on your support as I continue to advocate for rational policy.

I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of copying Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff as I think the aspect of the agricultural sector is a critically important part of this discussion.

Sincerely,
George
__________________________________________

From: "Gord Surgeoner" <gord@oaft.org>>To: <george.tesseris@sympatico.ca
Subject: Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:19:38 -0500

Dear George,

I noted your article in the December 20th Globe and Mail and would like to respectfully disagree with you on a number of issues you brought up. I respect your concern regarding hunger and your passion for something you believe in. First, let me explain that I have been in agriculture for over 30 years and have worked with farm organizations for most of that time. I am an entomologist by training, but for the last ten years have worked diligently to find new markets for the business of agriculture.

Ethanol production involves the creation and sale of three products, ethanol being one. About one-third of corn becomes ethanol, one-third dried distillers grain and one-third carbon dioxide. The dried distillers grain is used to feed livestock, for which much of the corn is grown. In fact, the protein content is about 30% instead of the normal 8% in whole corn kernels. In many places (e.g. Ontario) the co2 is used to enhance greenhouse production of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers (e.g. Leamington). The co2 is converted by plants into plant material (tomatoes) and the co product stream is oxygen. Yes, there is hunger in the world. Even in Canada, our food banks play an>important role. it is a distribution of wealth issue and not a production>issue. In much of the world, hunger is caused by man's inhumanity to man (i.e. North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia, etc.). The best way to cure hunger is to reduce losses in third world countries by;

- providing quality seed for third world farmers
- providing infrastructure - storage, transportation
- controlling diseases, insects and rodents. More than one-third of most third world crops are lost to pests.

I believe that when we say we will run out of something, the next question should be "at what price?" Simply giving food to third world countries destroys the incentive of their farmers. Why pay when its free and that destroys market for local farmers. Three years ago, farmers in Ontario were driving tractors down the 401. A tonne of dried corn cost less than disposing of a tonne of Toronto garbage. Your demand for low cost food says to our farmers that you must feed us at a low cost and you shouldn't have different marketing options like ethanol. The greatest risk for reduced food supply is farmers not getting fair return for labour and investment.

Today's corn prices are, in real dollars, far below the price paid in the mid 1970's and well below the highs of over $7.00 per bushel in the mid>summer, to about $3.75 last week (U.S. $). This points out how much impact speculators had on the market, which I consider to have been a far greater price impact than ethanol. We can agree to disagree, but I want to emphasize I respect your personal commitment to something you passionately believe in.

Sincerely,
Gord Surgeoner, Ph.D.
President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
New Address: 200-120 Research Lane
Guelph, ON N1G 0B4
Tel: (519) 826-4195
www.oaft.org

Oh dear, have I inadvertently caused a kerfuffle?

Well, my piece in the Globe, Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity, is certainly starting to generate some interest! Over a hundred emails so far... 95% favourable, 5% venomous.

First off, I would like to state unequivocally that I have absolutely no vested interest in the ethanol issue. I do not work for an oil company, I am not affiliated with any organization, I do not do any paid work, and I am financing this campaign by myself, through my savings. And at considerable cost to me. Because I believe in what I'm doing.

The reason I believe in it so strongly is that in 2008, the best of agricultural years, the planet used grains faster than it could produce them. We barely kept up with demand, and that demand is set to grow as the pace of ethanol production quickly picks up speed thanks to government policy. Unless we do something now, we better prepare for a food crisis that will make the credit crisis look like a walk in the park.

Also, I had one comment asking me to differentiate between grain-based ethanol and the sugarcane ethanol that Brazil produces and that is a large, mature industry that apparently does not compete with the food supply. Brazil. I wish I knew what to do about Brazil. That large and proud multi-racial democracy that is succeeding in pulling itself up by its bootstraps. That beacon of hope for the developing world, and not just. Agricultural heavyweight and guardian of the earth's Amazonian lungs. I am not an expert in the pros and cons of sugarcane ethanol, but I have nagging concerns about deforestation, land use pressures, and yes, impacts on global food supply that could result if Brazil's sugarcane ethanol industry was to become the next big thing. I need help with Brazil.

Finally but very importantly, I have created a Facebook group, Stop Ethanol and Save the Planet. Please join and help me get a grassroots movement going. Let's show our leaders the strength of our numbers.

Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity

Hello everyone,

Many of you will know by now that I took out a full page, essay-style ad in the Saturday December 20 edition of the Globe and Mail in order to raise the profile of my case against ethanol. Here is the ad:

Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity

Running a full page ad in the Globe ain't cheap, but I like to think that the piece is my Christmas present to the world and, frankly, to myself. This Christmas, I want to be comfortable in the knowledge that I am doing everything I can about a critically important issue.

Also - One or two people have commented on the conscious stylistic choices in parts of my blog. My writing is meant for effect and I realize it might not be to everyone's liking. But please take a look at the very first piece of correspondence - of many - that I have had with the Conservatives and the PMO on this issue. This note is addressed to the Conservative candidate in my Toronto Centre riding during last March's by-election. I think you will see that my approach could not have been more polite, courteous and reasoned.

That approach got me nowhere. I stand by my contention that Mr. Harper is well aware of the implications of his party's stance and is pursuing it anyway, for political reasons. He IS a hypocrite and a pigdog. I have shared my hypothesis with the Liberals, too, so I'm not sure they are much better. Nonetheless, the bulk of my communication has been with the governing party, who are also the strongest proponents of ethanol. There is no possible way that the economic arguments I am making could be beyond the grasp of our PM, the economist.

So sure, I haven't always chosen to be polite. But I have always been measured. Sometimes you just have to make some noise.

In closing, the early feedback to the Globe piece has been tremendous. Thank you all very much for your support, and best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.

Those darned Greeks

It's been a while since I last posted and lots has happened so I'll get right to it.

First, I finally heard back from the RCMP, and there is nothing in the Toronto RCMP files pertaining to the September 12th incident I described to them.

The RCMP did not indicate whether there is anything else about me in their files, or whether the information I was after might be held elsewhere. For example, the photographer could have been associated with another organization such as CSIS, or he could have been a private investigator for the ethanol lobby. Or his presence may have been complete coincidence unrelated to me or my advocating activities. I may never know, because in Canada your government does not have to answer your questions, CSIS is under no obligation to tell you if and on what grounds it has a file on you, and nothing prevents lobbyists from hiring private investigators to spy on you.

On the other hand, surveillance or not, I figure I can say and do pretty much anything I want without fear of consequences for the simple fact that no-one in power will risk doing anything that brings me publicity. And after all, what I am trying to do is moral and right. I'm not a slimy pigdog like Stephen Harper and I have nothing to hide or fear, like he does.

Which is too bad because publicity is exactly what I want.

The other major thing in my life over the last five weeks is that I went to Greece on a family emergency, and my return coincided with the well-publicized riots taking place in my country of birth. That made for an uncomfortable re-entry into Canada. I'll explain the details by way of reprinting the content of an email that I sent to my lawyer Andrew when I got back. I find it pleasingly impertinent and I think you may too.

Hi Andrew,

I got back to Toronto last night. Here are a few thoughts upon my return and in advance of speaking to you live....

On re-entering Canada, I was given the third degree by Customs and Immigration: Why did I go to Greece? What did I do in Athens? Where do I work? Why don't I work? How do I support myself? Why do I have so much in savings? Where do my savings come from? Where did I used to work? Why did I leave my job? Who do I live with? What was I doing in Athens, again... ?

For the record, here is what I was doing in Athens: Accompanying my mother on a visit to her aging schizophrenic sister who through sheer force of character has kept a roof over her head while battling that insidious disease alone for fifty years, and who one month ago fell in the tub and suffered from shock when it took several hours before someone could get into her locked apartment to help her.

And here is what I was not doing in Athens: Involving myself in any rioting or illegal activity of any sort. Let me be crystal clear, once again: I do not condone violence as a means to resolve anything. That said, I can certainly appreciate that element of spirit that makes the Greek protesters stand up and say no to rogue cops that shoot into crowds and kill defenseless fifteen year olds. There is a reason why no one has died in the recent riots, why Greek society has a much lower rate of violent crime than we do, and why no minor has been killed by a police officer in Greece in almost a quarter century.

There is also a reason why, here in Canada, nothing happens when a confused defenseless immigrant dies as a result of unnecessarily excessive force used by four trained police officers; or when the prime minister succeeds in shutting down parliament to hang on to power after an underhanded attempt to eviscerate the opposition that is so critical to the effectiveness of a highly functioning democracy.

The reason is this: We are rule-bound and complacent and we think that, this being Canada, we have systems that work if we just follow the rules.

Except that the rules aren't always right and systems don't always work.

When our government is hell-bent on supporting what amounts to a "crime against humanity" (not my words, those of UN officials before they were muzzled as a condition of receiving emergency food aid to combat the food crisis), and when it obfuscates all attempts to inject reason into official policy just because doing otherwise might cost them votes in agricultural ridings, then our system of governance is NOT working.

The reason I contacted you about this issue is that I was looking for every angle to accomplish what I have set out to do. It was my hope that your expertise in constitutional law and your social justice approach could uncover legal avenues to get an argument heard that I cannot think of or access on my own. I also thought that you would be well-placed to help me fight the system if it wasn't doing what it should.

But it is possible that the law, being part of that system, cannot help in this case. Perhaps Canadian law was actually designed to allow the government to put a whisteblower under surveillance when what he is saying threatens the established order of things, and that there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

If that is the case, just let me know. I do not care how much money I have to spend to get results, but I do care if it is not money well-spent. It would be great if the system, with all its laws, regulations, charters, procedures and precedents, can avert a perfectly predictable catastrophe from happening. But make no mistake that if it can't, I will find another way. And for all the damage it will cause to "the system", it will be non-violent.

Andrew, thanks for letting me ramble on a bit. I am taking the liberty of copying the PMO and the ethanol lobby (http://www.greenfuels.org/) - because their continued silence [in response to my advocating activities] actually amuses me and strengthens my resolve. I hope I have given you all a bit of insight into my motivation and character. The situation at Customs really did not sit well with me, and if there's one thing I cannot stand, it is hypocrites and liars.

In any case Andrew, thank you for your continued support. It is always valuable to have a good lawyer at one's disposal.

Regards,
George

Hope and audacity

Those of you following my blog know that I have been trying to confirm whether I was put under surveillance for my advocating activities with respect to ethanol. Here's an update...

On October 27, I followed up with the RCMP Privacy Office on my surveillance question of October 8. I was told that my request was "at the earliest stages of processing" and that "many factors influence the release time of information." I was told that I should expect a response in thirty days.

I don't see any practical reason why it should take two and a half months, all told, to get a response to a very straightforward question involving my security and privacy; I don't see why I should accept that the PMO simply chose to ignore my question when I posed it to them on September 13; I don't see how this situation can be considered acceptable in a well-functioning democracy.

Could it be that I'm just not smart enough to understand appropriate use of prime-ministerial power?

My first boss out of university gave me a piece of advice that has served me well in life. He said: George, if something doesn't make sense to YOU then it doesn't make sense PERIOD. Keep asking questions until it does.

So I'm asking questions. But since I'm not confident that the answers I get will be any good, I've decided to seek some pre-emptive legal advice. Last week I retained a firm that specializes in constitutional and administrative law. I am prepared to take this matter to the highest level possible. I want to know why the PMO didn't respond to my question; I want the government to explain to Canada the ethics and rationality of diverting massive amounts of agricultural land to produce fuel at a time when people are going hungry; I want to draw attention to my argument before the planet gets blindsided by another crisis that no one (and everyone) saw coming.

Barack Obama is poised to win the U.S. election tomorrow. Mr. Obama is from Illinois, a corn state, and he is a big supporter of bio-fuels. I have no reason to think that Mr. Obama is not a principled man. Maybe he just hasn't had time to really think through the implications of his stance. All the same, if he wins, his administration will push the ethanol agenda full-speed ahead.

Of course, that only heightens my sense of urgency.

Do I really think an ordinary person like me can change the course of the world with not much more than a laptop and a bit of determination? You bet I do.

Hope and audacity are two things that Mr. Obama and I share.

A few bad mortgages, a little less corn to eat

Hi all,

I'd like to share with you this short article about leadership from Monday's Globe and Mail. The story talks about the pivotal roles that fear of conflict and losing touch with the basics played in the global financial meltdown. With a little insight, you can draw clear parallels between subprime lending and that other great illusion, bio-fuels.

I'm confident most of you question the wisdom of using food for fuel. But I'm also willing to bet most of you think that ethanol could not possibly have fallout exceeding the subprime crisis in scale and speed; that if it could, the world's leaders would surely be on top of it.

Don't be so sure. Remember the lessons of subprime: Sometimes people who ought to get it, don't. Sometimes they get it but are reluctant to speak out. Sometimes they are complicit.

All of us, every day, make decisions large and small that influence the world around us. Every one of us is a leader. Consider what you can do to be a better leader. Think about your right and your duty to say what needs to be said. Don't dilute the message.

Democracy, my friends, starts in the voting booth. It doesn't end there.

Please read comments

Hi everyone,

Just wanted let you know that some very substantive discussion has taken place in the comments to my first - and key -post. I encourage you to take a few minutes and read them.

Thanks to everyone for your support. I think we're starting to see some traction.

George

Why this blog?

Many countries have implemented policies to encourage the replacement of conventional fuel with ethanol and other bio-fuels typically made from corn or other grains. The International Energy Agency estimates that it would take 15% - 20% of the world's farmland to achieve a minimum content requirement of 5% ethanol in motor fuel if that standard was implemented worldwide. Some countries are mandating more.

With today's level of agricultural productivity, 15% of the world's farmland feeds about one billion of its people. For every percentage point of the world's farmland that we choose to divert to fuel crops, food for 65 million people will disappear.

See the problem?

Hello, and thank you for visiting my blog.

When I first took an interest in ethanol and the food crisis last fall, the issue was on hardly anyone's radar. In just a few short months, it became a headline grabbing global crisis. How did it happen so quickly?

In this post I'll tell you:

• A little about myself
• My take on the food crisis and ethanol's role in it
• My campaign for common sense policy
• What you can do to help

The post is three or four pages long. I think you'll find it thought-provoking. The most important part - what you can do - is at the very end. Please stick it out!
.
First, a few words about me. My name is George Tesseris, I'm 46 years old, I was born in Greece, and my family moved to Canada when I was very young. I live in Toronto. I am one hundred percent Canadian and I will always value my Greek roots. In Canada that's more than just ok, and I think that's one very good reason for the world to pay attention to Canada.

My educational background is in engineering and my professional background is in financial services. I have neither a vested interest in any aspect of the ethanol issue, nor any political motives. A couple of years ago I became seriously ill and left my job to concentrate fully on my health. Last fall, with time on my hands and my health recovering nicely, I started to follow media coverage of what seemed like an unlikely relationship between ethanol and a food crisis that was developing in the third world. As I made it back to full health, I found myself becoming increasingly involved with this one issue.

I believe that ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things when they set their minds to it. I think stopping ethanol is an extraordinarily important thing to do and I'm doing everything I can to make a difference.

So that's a little about me. Now let me tell you my views on ethanol and the food crisis.

I'm not an economist but I have taken a few university level economics courses, and I think basic economic theory can help us understand how the food crisis arose and where it is heading.

For some time now, demand for foodgrains has been exceeding supply. Not even the ethanol lobby denies that the ethanol boom is at least partly responsible for the supply/demand imbalance. The effect of this imbalance is that global grain stockpiles have hit historic lows. Where the world usually has six months' supply of foodgrains, this past spring saw supply drop to less than two months' worth.

Economic theory tells us that no commodity is more sensitive to the forces of supply and demand than food. In fact, when there's a concern that supply will not meet demand, the economics of food become the economics of scarcity. Panic buying, hoarding and very large price gyrations occur. Intuitively, this phenomenon is easy to understand.

Theoretically, it can be explained with the Economics 101 concepts of elasticity of demand and substitution. First, in economic terms, demand for food is almost completely inelastic. It stays almost constant in the face of supply drops or price increases because people can't put off the decision to eat until the economics become more favourable. Secondly, the prices of basic staples like wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans are inter-related because one can substitute for another in basic diets. In economic terms, they are substitute goods. Hence, even a small deficit in the supply/demand balance for corn can cause shortages and price spikes not only for corn but for all basic staples, as people start shifting their diets in search of affordable alternatives.

Essentially, what all of this means is that panic behaviour sets in quickly when people perceive they may lose access to affordable food. Left to market forces, fear translates into a price spiral that starts with basic staples and spreads to all other types of food. Eventually, of course, inflationary pressures ripple into the broader economy.

That's what we started to see last spring. Supply could not keep up with demand, the cupboards became increasingly bare, and there was a run up in food prices. Of course, the world's poorest economies were most affected because their people have the least capacity to absorb increased costs. The result was perfectly predictable: widespread food demonstrations and riots, panic buying and hoarding, and export restrictions in some countries (in other words, hoarding on a national scale).

The key point to remember is that it doesn't take long before a very small ongoing deficit in the supply/demand equilibrium causes food shortages and very large price spikes. That, and that people get incredibly cranky when their grocery bill triples. Not a good idea to mess around with the world's food supply.

Let's be perfectly clear. This isn't the market breaking down. It's the market behaving exactly as science predicts. One thing is certain: when you take food production out of the system, you'd better be damn sure you can replace 100% of it with new supply or else there will be bidding wars for what remains and someone down the line will have to go without.

Now about ethanol. Mandated ethanol use is climbing rapidly - and pressuring the food supply -all over the developed world. For example, twenty percent of the American corn crop is already going to ethanol and the recently-enacted U.S. Energy Bill mandates a five-fold increase in ethanol production over the next several years. The U.S. is the world's largest producer and exporter of corn. When it diverts so much of its corn crop for fuel, there is a very material impact on the fundamentals of supply and demand for all foodgrains worldwide.

Luckily, recent weather conditions have been very favourable for agriculture in most parts of the world. Bumper grain crops are now expected almost everywhere, so that there will probably be enough supply to meet this year's growth in demand. It looks like we might have dodged a bullet - for now.

Expect the reprieve to be temporary. Government subsidies and minimum fuel content quotas are driving rapid ethanol production growth not only in the U.S. but all over the European Union, Canada and other parts of the world. Clearly, grain supply will be under intense pressure to keep up with demand into the foreseeable future. And next year, we may not be so lucky with the weather.

Given the stakes, we need to think seriously about the likelihood that grain stockpiles will soon approach absolute depletion and food prices will spiral out of control. It's entirely plausible that the entire world - developed and developing - will be faced with the economic, geopolitical and humanitarian implications of food hyper-inflation and widespread hunger next year. Last spring was a preview of just how quickly that can happen.

We can spend a lot of time discussing that ethanol is not the only factor at play - that fuel costs, improving diets in the developing world, and poor weather in previous years have all contributed to food inflation and the supply/demand imbalance. In fact, wasting a lot of time arguing the relative impact of each factor is exactly what the ethanol industry wants us to do. It has no interest in changing the status quo. After all, it gets huge subsidies to help us burn food.

Of course there are many factors affecting the world's food supply. But talking about them ad nauseum isn't going to solve the food crisis. It remains that responsible governments should be looking for immediate, concrete ways to restore sustainable market equilibrium, and the only lever that can be effectively and immediately manipulated to restore that equilibrium is ethanol policy. Any sensible government should be thinking very hard about facing up to that inconvenient truth and pulling the ethanol lever right now.

Countries that have a recent history of hunger - India, China - have a visceral understanding of food economics and have pushed the West on ethanol policy. The West, without the same recent history and influenced by the agrofuel lobby, the notion of energy self-sufficiency, and a plain old aversion to backpedalling, has pushed back firmly. Against all good sense, it looks like ethanol is here to stay.

No discussion of ethanol would be complete without looking at the environment. While ethanol has been around for a long time, the current push started in the last few years as the world began looking for ways to mitigate climate change. On the surface, it certainly seems that a renewable, non-carbon source of fuel should be a great alternative to oil. And if it was, then perhaps one could try to make the case that the risks are worth it. However almost as much energy goes into growing, harvesting, transporting and refining grain-based ethanol as is produced by the process. Furthermore, deforestation, pollution from fertilizers, and impacts on water supply are real concerns as more land is pressured to grow even more crops. For these reasons, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund have all spoken out against grain-based ethanol. The Green Party of Canada does not support it. Ethanol is bad environmental policy.

One would hope that Stephen Harper - Canada's no-nonsense prime minister and a trained economist who is about to start campaigning for re-election - grasps all this. Canada, by virtue of its international orientation and shared values of fairness, compassion and common sense, is uniquely positioned to lead the world in making wiser policy choices that stop encouraging ethanol. Canada may not be in the demographic big leagues but it holds a respected place in the global community. Sometimes one small crack is all it takes.

As a Canadian, I have been trying to make this argument with my government since February '08. I have raised the issue at an all-candidates' election debate. I have had ongoing correspondence with the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministers of Agriculture and Natural Resources. I have made contact with the opposition parties and the media. While I have not yet had any traction with the opposition or the media, I have succeeded in receiving personal responses from both ministers. Judging by their replies, my government does not understand that ethanol is a grave and imminent threat to humanity.

Or doesn't want to.

This blog is the next step in my campaign. I will use it to update you on the results of my efforts and I will occasionally post my views about news stories related to the issue. I hope you'll join in with your comments too. If you click one of the Subscribe buttons on the right side of the screen, you'll be automatically notified when new content is posted.

But above all, if you agree that ethanol is a really bad idea then please do these three things:

1. Tell your government. In Canada, email your MP and the Prime Minister. send them a link to this blog, and tell them you agree with the views expressed. In the United States, email your elected representative and the President. Elsewhere, email your elected representative and the leader of your government. The same arguments hold no matter where you happen to live.
2. Tell the media. Email your favourite media outlet, send them a link to this blog, and tell them you agree with the views expressed.
3. Tell your friends. Send your friends and colleagues a link to this blog and ask them to help out.

Working together and speaking with a common voice, we can make our governments listen to reason.

Thanks,
George